Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study
Introduction and hypothesis
To compare the efficacy and safety of the Elevate™ anterior and posterior prolapse repair system and traditional vaginal native tissue repair in the treatment of stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse.
A cohort study was conducted between January 2010 and July 2012. Patients who underwent transvaginal pelvic reconstruction surgery for prolapse were recruited. The primary outcome was anatomical success 1 year after surgery. The secondary outcome included changes in the quality of life and surgical complications. Recurrence of prolapse was defined as stage 2 or higher prolapse based upon the pelvic organ prolapse qQuantification system.
Two hundred and one patients (100 in the Elevate™ repair group and 101 in the traditional repair group) were recruited and analyzed. The anatomical success rate of the anterior compartment was significantly higher in the Elevate™ repair group than in the traditional repair group (98 % vs 87 %, p = 0.006), but not for the apical (99 % vs. 6 %, p = 0.317) or posterior (100 % vs 97 %, p = 0.367) compartments after a median 12 months of follow-up. Both groups showed significant improvements in the quality of life after surgery with no statistical difference. Mesh-related complications included extrusion (3 %) and the need for revision of the vaginal wound (1 %). Those in the mesh repair group had a longer hospital stay (p = 0.04), operative time (p < 0.001), and greater estimated blood loss (p = 0.05). Other complications were comparable with no statistical difference.
The Elevate™ prolapse repair system had a better 1-year anatomical cure rate of the anterior compartment than traditional repair, with slightly increased morbidity.
KeywordsColporrhaphy Pelvic organ prolapse Surgical mesh Vaginal surgery
Pelvic organ prolapse
Urogenital Distress Inventory (short form)
Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (short form)
Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (short form)
- 4.Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 14:CD004014Google Scholar
- 8.FDA (2011) FDA Safety Communications: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ Safety/AlertandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 13 July 2011
- 10.Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H, Kohli N, Goldman HB, Lucente V, Network PS (2012) Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J 23:5–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA et al (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: The incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Continence program for women research group. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar